[rfc-i] Proposal for v3 to simplify most references

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Feb 10 08:35:34 PST 2014


On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 6:04 PM, John R Levine <johnl at taugh.com> wrote:
>>> So, in the proposal I sent, make the "expanded" attribute mandatory for
>>> "bcp" and "std".
>>
>>
>> When formatting an RFC.  For an I-D it makes no real difference.  If
>> you want ease of use, why make the I-D author look up the RFC number
>> (and then, when the BCP is changed to refer to a newer RFC, the I-D
>> author will get nits about it).
>
> Well, sure.  But we need to be sure there's a way to make it stable and to
> mechanically verify that it's a stable reference.

Yes, and that mechanism should be available to authors.  It should be
optional.  Eventually the reference is to be made stable.  Eventually
may be as late as when the RFC-Editor prepares the final copy, though
it should most often be when the IESG does its review.

>> Something like:
>>
>>    <library name="RFC-Editor"/>
>>    <library name="my-lib" ref="URI to my reference library">
>
> Sounds utterly unstable for any library other than the RFC Editor's.

How is that different from what we have now?  For I-D sources that's
fine, whereas for RFC sources the RFC-Editor would ensure that only
standard reference libraries would be used (and any other references
in-lined, or similar).

Nico
--


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list